Who in the Communion speaks for the powerless of Nigeria who would be imprisoned by these wicked and pathetic laws supported by clergy?

Apparently only the Episcopal Church.

I am not surprised that it is a bishop of the Episcopal Church saying this. It has time and again demonstrated moral backbone and clarity. It is prepared to stand up and in the name of our Lord and Savior, speak the Word to wickedness.

And apparently, it is ready and willing to do so when no one else will.

Bishop Chane is of course right. The recent actions of the Nigerian church leadership are a disgrace to all of Christendom. The silence of the AC on this matter is also a disgrace. (I'd add, ++Rowan's silence on this issue and his laser focus on "one Church" is misplaced.)

Those who would look to Akinola and his ilk as moral and even proper leaders (my keyboard nearly rebels at those words being in so close association to each other) would do well to consider exactly what it is they are looking at. They must consider exactly what such a man would do. His record is clear. It is a bad one.

If rebels in TEC support Akinola's words and actions, they should say so. If they look to him for guidance and clarity of action and purpose, they should say so. If they support banning even mentioning certain words or activities, they should stand up and say so proudly. If they support lying about and vilifying their own church members, they should stand up and say so. If they support banning the mention of other churches and groups, they should stand up and say so. If they would extend this activity to newspapers and other public media, they should stand up and say so.

I have been waiting for someone in the Anglican Communion to speak out on this issue (as those who have noticed my earlier posts are aware) & I am happy to find that someone finally is speaking out. Why am I not surprised to find that it is an American (& a dreaded "liberal")? It actually sounds as if he waited for someone more senior to speak before finally coming forward. I am glad he did. I hope that he will not be the last one. I hope that more people in authority speaking out will do some good. The situation in Nigeria is bad & seems to be deteriorating rapidly.

I think Akinola leaped before he looked while pushing so hard-and-fast for creation of the dangerous and demoralizing/repressive and UNDEMOCRATIC laws against the LGBT people of Nigeria.

Thinking people (and Anglicans) are stunned and silent.

I believe Akinola is "caught up" with the sound and excitement of his own voice/mind of hate and his addictive enthusiasm for the gathering power (especially Episcopal Chursh USA goodies/goods) at OUR Church is in overdrive. Akinola's passionate desire to punish LGBT human beings (who are his fellow Christians and Nigerian brothers and sisters) is a powerful example of his selfwill/egomania and "deadly" righteousness running out-of-control.

I'm stunned by such obvious arrogance and ignorance...more silence.

I don't think it is possible for anyone to offer up a positive "spin" for Akinola and his hatefilled grandstanding on the political/spirtual Nigerian front.

I'm baffled and shocked!

Nigeria is a very sick and "divided" country with confused leaders who are trying to preside over a waring population who have deadly and deep social and religious resentments.

Read and watch the World News TODAY and EVERYDAY and you will see why Akinola should best keep his eye on the REAL moral issue *concerns* amongst the CLERGY and Anglican FLOCK in Nigeria.

Remember, Akinola doesn't *really* believe LGBT people exist ("there isn't even a word for *it*" he says) in Nigeria so the murdering, raping, slaughtering, thieving/manipulating and blatant social insanity must be being done by those Godly heterosexuals who Akinola approves of and ministers to!

Makes me think that the government officials of Nigeria and the religious leadership of OUR Church in Nigeria are just plain NUTS!

I have to say that I am deeply worried about the future for Nigeria. I think that the country is staggering towards a civil war which could well be long and brutal. I can see the nation being split into two parts (Muslim and Christian) with no simple way of healing the wounds which will ensue.

From the words of Akinola, it looks as if he is positioning himself to be the leader of the Christian half of Nigeria. As a result, his words and actions are less to do with true Christian values and more to do with sectarian politicking. The danger for Christians outside Nigeria is that, if he does make a play to control Christian Nigeria, he will call for assistance from Christians elsewhere and make Nigeria a potent symbol of Muslim v Christian hatred.

Does anyone know where in the nation the oil reserves are? In the event of civil war and an attempt to partition the country, possession of the oil fields will be of paramount importance.

I honestly get the same sinking feeling about Nigeria that I had when Yugslavia began to disintegrate - that sick awareness that if things continue in the direction they are going, there will be massacres aplenty before long. In such a situation, we need Christian leaders who can be true peacemakers and reconcilers. I don't see Akinola in this role somehow.

And if you look at these recent Ekklesia articles, the neo-fascist continuum of escalating violence is also seems to be developing in Nigeria (i.e. first pick on the "ungodly" homosexuals, then move onto advocating violence against others...)

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060221nigeria.shtml which includes:
In a statement, the controversial Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola, known to many across the world for his outspoken statements about homosexuality said; "May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation. CAN may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue," said Akinola, who heads CAN.

Which followed on from: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060223nigeria.shtml, which includes:
At least 20 people were killed in revenge attacks on Muslims in Nigeria yesterday as religious riots intensified a day after the country's leading Anglican archbishop warned Muslims that they did not have a "monopoly on violence"... Christian mobs with machetes and guns roamed the streets of the mainly Christian city of Onitsha, in the south-east, in retaliation for Muslim violence in the north earlier this week which killed dozens of people, destroyed churches and left thousands homeless.

The problem with the violence path is that it simply escalates, and the agenda becomes controlled by those with blood lust and no regard for human life.

There are souls in many parts of the world who seem to be confusing violence with valour. It is not bravery to respond in kind to those who would create degenerate genocidal regimes, that is simply acting out one's fear with violence in the hope that you will kill the bad guy before the bad guy kills you. An eye for an eye begets a tooth for a tooth and costs a soul for a soul.

True valour is recognising the nature of the enemy and being able to snatch their narcisstic supply away from them, whilst creating a new paradigm where such people are recognised as criminally insane. That is the kind of valour that Moses showed when he wrested the Jewish people out of the hands of the Pharoah and took them into Exodus. The Jewish peoples' liberation did not come via a blood bath. It came by God's direct intervention and protection through Him anointing Moses who then displayed complete trust in God and an unfailing love for his people that led him again and again to stand up for them even though they were are "lost cause".

With all due respect, Cheryl (and I have respected what you have written), I imagine the loss of the first born sons looked like a blood bath to the Egyptians. Yes, it was God's intervention; but it can't have been pretty to be on the losing side.

That said, I am also glad Bishop Chane has not only spoken out, but has done so in a very public and not simply Anglican forum. I also fear civil war in Nigeria, abetted - seen as justified - by Akinola's belief in a very muscular, very pure Christianity.

I am not, of course, surprised that Akinola will not listen. He said shortly after the Windsor Report made its most recent reference to listening that he had nothing to learn from such "notorious sinners."

I have spoken before of reconciliation. While I still think it is the righteous path to seek it, I fear it is futile. We can only take our stands, pray for God to make God's will clear to all of us, and wait for these events to work out.

Iirc, much of the known oil reserves in Nigeria are in the South-East, which was one reason Biafra wasn't allowed to secede. Not altogether sure about this, but that is what I seem to recall.

At the time of independence in 1960, English-style common law prevailed throughout Nigeria. All the northern states now have Sharia even though this involves an impossible contradiction with the Federal constitution and there are significant Christian communities in places like Jos, Kaduna and elsewhere.
If you have ANY idea how Sharia can be reversed there, you should say so... (/crickets)
And if you have ANY idea how a creeping local kind of Sharia can be reversed in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, you should similarly (and more realistically) speak out and act. Don't be cowed by name-calling. Step by step you are losing your liberties in Europe.

Marshall

I found that your position actually has a lot in common with my own. Most importantly you commented that we should "..pray for God to make God's will clear to all of us..." This is a fundamentally different position to those who come up with an absolutist position and then move to enforce their narrow interpretation of the Will of God (the latter cultural dynamic easily slides into appallingly repressive regimes such as apartheid or nazism).

Further, it is consistent with a fundamental lesson that Moses teaches us. Moses fled to Midian (Exodus 2:11-15) after killing an Egyptian, and did not move to fulfill his role of leading the Jewish people until God made it absolutely clear that he was to do so (Exodus 3.1 - 4:17). In fact, Moses did not return to Egypt until told to do so by God (Exodus 4:19-20).

Thus Moses never worked independently of God and demanded praise for his works. He worked with and for God, at God's bequest and with God's direct intervention on many occassions.

On the bloodbath of the Egyptian first born sons, the Pharoah was prepared to commit genocide by ordering the killing of ALL Hebrew males (Exodus 1:80-22), and only failed because the Hebrew midwives refused to cooperate.

Yes the plagues, death of first born sons, the Egyptians drowning in the sea were harsh. But they were Acts of God, not acts of men justifying their violence in the name of God. Moses was merely the messenger and channel, but he never claimed to be God and never sought to be above his people. In fact at one point he exclaimed “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD'S people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” (Numbers 11:29).

Peter, sorry, but that is right-wing propaganda with regard to Europe.

In any case, whats the difference between sharia law and theonomic reconstructionist Christianity?

Merseymike: well, for one thing, one exists and the other doesn't. Shall I give you a clue?
As for 'right-wing propaganda with regard to Europe' (so much worse than the 'true'left-wing variety!): maybe the fish in the sea is not always aware of the water? I have observed Britain and Europe for over 25 years and visited many parts of the continent. The institutionalization of Islamic ways in Europe is very marked: Muslim schools, Islamic dress for girls (even an English schoolgirl, thanks to Cherie Blair), panic over cartoons following by grovelling and apologies, palpable fear in the Netherlands, cantonized cities in France (and northern England), a bending over backwards to appease complaining Muslims (even about china pigs!), crazy demagogues like George Galloway getting elected - step by step this is what is happening to your formerly Christian continent. You can deny it if you wish, but visit Amsterdam and stroll around with Hirsan Ali. Or Geert Wilders. Or Salman Rushdie. Or Pim Fortuyn - no, scrub that one! Sharia is coming to Europe, even if it's on kitten's paws. Stand back far enough (out of the water, even) and see the big picture.

Quick question. Has Dr. Akinola actually stated anywhere that he is in favor of this legislation? And I'll need a source a great deal more reliable than John Chane's word for it.

But I don't see what the fuss is about. As bad as we may consider this proposed legislation, Nigeria is a sovereign entity and has the legal and constitutional right to pass such laws. So it is rather rich reading anyone from ECUSA, particularly a radical like Chane, blathering on about things other people may or may not approve.

A wonderful analysis can be found at http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3667

Pray; When did tolerance become condoning?

Mr. Johnson posted-Nigeria is a sovereign entity and has the legal and constitutional right to pass such laws.

Interesting that when it comes to an Episcopal Bishop commenting about a human rights travesty, we hear "Nigeria is a sovereign entity!" But when the ECUSA advances the cause of universal equality in their own sovereign nation, Nigeria whines, cries and severs the communion. It’s nice to have a country like Nigeria, taking up the torch as model of human rights and morality for the world.